Feds Prepare to Wage All-Out
War on Domestic Dissidents,
So-Called Extremists;
Former FBI Agent Claims
Even ‘Grumpy Old Geezers’
Could Be Threat to America

By Michael Collins Piper

On
May 29 The Washington Post revealed that
the Bush administration was redirecting its vaunted “war on
terrorism” toward a new “strategy against violent extremism.”
Then, one week later, on June 5, the Post
featured a prominently placed commentary by a former FBI agent —
who specialized in infiltrating “right wing” dissident
groups in the United States — proposing that federal authorities
begin efforts to wage all-out warfare against perceived domestic
“extremist” groups.

The former FBI agent contended that the American “extremist”
groups are a breeding ground for violence and therefore need to
be dealt with essentially as a criminal conspiracy. “Behind
the lone terrorist, a pack mentality,” read the headline on
Mike German’s commentary.

German made it clear that the “domestic terrorist” groups
that he says need special treatment are a diverse group. He pulled
no punches in his description of those whom he perceives as the
extremists. He says they are not just those who might “look”
like extremists. German wrote:

They don’t always call themselves the
KKK or the militia; they sometimes use benign names that mask
their true nature. They might wear nazi symbols right on their
sleeves, but they might not. They could be just a couple of grumpy
old geezers who meet for coffee at a local cafe, or a few young
punks looking for trouble, or even one guy sitting in his basement
chatting on neo-nazi web sites. But they are all part of an underground
extremist community.

However, said German, “every once in a while,
a follower of these movements bursts violently into our world, with
deadly consequences.” He cited a number of individuals
who committed violent crimes and who had, in media jargon, been
“linked” to a variety of so-called “extremist”
groups.

And while there are undoubtedly many such organizations that might
well be considered “extremist,” German does not lay
down the lines of demarcation as to what constitutes “extremism”
versus presumably respectable expressions of freedom of speech.
Here’s where it gets even more disturbing. German asserted
that:

The fact that these individuals, after being
exposed to extremist ideology, each committed violent acts might
lead a reasonable person to suspect the existence of a wider conspiracy.
Imagine a very smart leader of an extremist movement, one who
understands the First Amendment and criminal conspiracy laws,
telling his followers not to depend on specific instructions.
He might tell them to divorce themselves from the group before
they commit a violent act; to act individually or in small groups
so that others in the movement could avoid criminal liability.
This methodology creates a win-win situation for the extremist
leader — the violent goals of the group are met without
the legal consequences.

In other words, German is suggesting, anytime
an individual who has been “linked” to an “extremist”
group may commit a crime, it is not beyond logic to suspect that
the group or its leaders actually instigated the crime; effectively,
the constitutionally protected free expression by an individual
or group, which might have somehow influenced another party to carry
out a violent act, must be addressed. In short: it’s time
to start cracking down on those who are found guilty not of a crime,
but only of “extremism,” however defined.

It’s a conspiracy by the extremists, according to German,
and he added that, “to close our eyes to this conspiracy is
to deny reality. It’s a matter of connecting the dots.”

Claiming that “Neo-nazi ideology is also a leading influence
in rising school violence”— quite a stretch of the truth,
and one that ignores the increasing use of psychiatric drugs in
treating school kids, which often leads to depression and violence
— German cited only two cases that are even vaguely linked
to “neo-nazi” ideology.

The first instance German cited was the recent school shooting in
Minnesota where a young American Indian, who evidently was an admirer
of Adolf Hitler, killed several people and then himself.

German also hypes the essentially discredited claim that the Columbine
High School shooting was inspired by a devotion to the National
Socialist leader. However, what German fails to note is that one
of the Columbine killers was the scion of a Jewish family prominent
in Jewish community affairs in Columbus, Ohio.

In addition, it should be noted parenthetically that a prominent
psychiatrist, Dr. Robert John, strongly believes, based on his own
study, a theme that another educator, Dr. Phillip Glidden, echoed
in his own book, Trading on Guilt, that
increasing “Holocaust studies” in the public schools
are actually contributing to violence among young people by desensitizing
them to violence through the constant display of images of violence.

In any case, German flatly asserted that “by providing both
the motive and method for violence,” these leaders [of “extremist”
groups] who have supposedly “devised a method of masking their
influence” are therefore “part of the conspiracy”
to commit acts of violence.

“Their cynical reliance on First Amendment rights, which they
would not grant others, does not negate their role,” German
wrote.

German concluded: “Lone extremists pose a
challenge for law enforcement because they are difficult to predict.
It’s like searching every haystack for a needle. Perhaps we’d
have better luck if we paid more attention to the needle factories.”

What makes German’s message so chilling is that it has an
eerie echo of long-standing claims by the Anti- Defamation League
(ADL) of B’nai B’rith — which touts itself as
a “watchdog” keeping an eye on “extremist”
groups — that political commentary to which the ADL objects
constitutes “obscenity.” Such “obscenity,”
they argue, can lead to violence.

For example, in 1988 at Hofstra University in New York, the ADL
conducted a three-day legal symposium entitled “Group Defamation
and Freedom of Speech: The Relationship Between Language and Violence.”
The forum concluded with a rousing call for passage of a law to
ban what was described as “hate literature” by so-called
“extremists.”

The opinions expressed by the featured speakers advocating a ban
on hate literature centered around two ideas:

• Words, written or spoken, constitute violence. (For example,
one need only call someone a name without threatening any physical
action to perform an act of violence.)

• Words, written or spoken, take on a certain power that creates
a reality for the target or victim of these words. (For example,
by calling someone a “dirty rotten bum,” he will become
one.)

In his opening remarks, Hofstra law professor Monroe Freedman said
that trying to defend free speech while trying to protect minorities
against those who “defame”
them is a “paradox of constitutional democracy.” According
to Freedman:

Group defamation can create a social climate
that is receptive to and encourages hatred and oppression. If
a minority group can be made to appear less than human, deserving
of punishment, or a threat to the general community, oppression
of that minority is a likely consequence.

We know also that language itself can hurt, that there are words
that, by their very utterance, inflict injury . . . When the message
is violent, language can itself be violence.

Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.), another featured
speaker, described what he called “psychic pain” inflicted
by language.

Another speaker, self-described “Holocaust survivor”
Elie Wiesel, injected his opinion that those engaging in group defamation
should be “fought” and “dealt with harshly.”

The conference featured a moot court argument of the winning submission
of a competition among law students around the nation to write a
model statute that could be used to prosecute those who engage in
so-called “group defamation.” The first prize winner
was a statute defining group defamation as:

Any oral, written or symbolic speech, published
with malice that debases, degrades or calls into question the
loyalties, abilities or integrity of members of a group based
on a characteristic that is allegedly common to the members of
that group, or that by its very utterance inflicts injury upon
members of a group, or that promotes animosity against a group.

A “group” was defined as “an
aggregation of people identified by a common race, religion, national
origin, ethnicity, or gender, or based upon heterosexuality or homosexuality.”

Under the proposed statute, a government agency would be established
to monitor acts of group defamation; assess the impact of any speech
that defames a group; and counteract the actually and potentially
adverse effects of that speech. That agency would also review all
films and movies before they could be shown and, if deemed to be
offensive, ban public viewing.

At the time, correspondents who are now working for American
Free Press were alone in reporting on this remarkable
forum. But on Nov. 2, 1995, then-Rep. (now U.S. Senator) Charles
Schumer (D-N.Y.) joined with Conyers in promoting legislation of
the character proposed at the ADL conference.

The Schumer measure, H.R. 2580, was deceptively called “The
Republican Form of Government Guarantee Act.”

A long-time ADL ally in Congress, Schumer proposed to outlaw discussion
of what he called “baseless conspiracy theories regarding
the government” that he said endangered public order. Although
Schumer is best known as the leading congressional enemy of the
Second Amendment and the rights of gun-owners, Schumer’s new
target — the First Amendment — would have effectively
been scrapped if the bill had been passed.

Under the proposed legislation, Schumer wanted to set up a formal,
official police state apparatus to silence and control government
critics.

POLICE STATE

The correspondents for the now defunct populist newspaper, The
Spotlight, concluded that Schumer’s proposal
might have been the most dangerous police-state
legislation ever introduced in an American Congress as of that time
and promptly launched an effort to defeat the bill. Although the
ADL pressed hard for the measure, public pressure stimulated by
The Spotlight resulted in the ADL scheme
being rejected.

That first ADL-sponsored conspiracy against freedom of speech has,
of course, been egregiously surpassed by the now-infamous Patriot
Act, which, even as this is written,
the Bush administration — with the support of the ADL —
is trying to expand. This comes at the time when the Bush administration
is declaring its new war on “violent extremism” and
a former FBI agent has come forth asserting the need to fight what
he sees as a “conspiracy” among political dissidents
to stir up violence.

Do not be surprised to find a growing media focus on “violence
by extremists in America” calling for American law enforcement
to be more vigilant in dealing with those deemed to be “out
of the mainstream” and therefore potentially violent.

In light of all this, it’s no coincidence, for example, that
the ADL maintains what it calls a “Law Enforcement Agency
Resource Network.” Through this network the ADL recently cited
the May 20-22 conference in New Orleans conducted by former state
Rep. David Duke of Louisiana as the type of “extremist”
activity that needs to be monitored. This announcement came despite
the fact that Duke and others in attendance specifically and repeatedly
renounced violence and angry rhetoric. But in the view of one such
as ex-FBI man German, Duke and other leaders are simply sending
out evil messages designed to insulate themselves and, at the same
time, encourage violence.

Obviously, as a former FBI agent detailed to infiltrating “extremist”
groups, German was certainly working closely — during his
many years in the field — with the ADL, which has long had
an intimate relationship with the FBI Their connection goes back
to the years prior to World War II when the ADL was a prime instigator
of the infamous “Great Sedition Trial” of patriotic
Americans whose only crime was to stand in opposition to Franklin
D. Roosevelt’s drive to commit the United States to war against
the Axis powers.

The Bush administration is moving toward a fight against “violent
extremism” at a time when the ADL and other pro-Israel lobby
groups are making the claim that American critics of Israel are
lending moral aid and support to Islamic extremists by making statements
critical of Israel. So, it appears as though German’s commentary
in The Washington Post is nothing less
than a proverbial trial balloon, setting the stage for future endeavors
to destroy political dissidents in America who dare to criticize
the global war-mongering and pro-Israel extremism of the so-called
“high priests of war” who dominate policymaking in the
Bush administration.

Sidebar quote:
"What makes the FBI man’s message so chilling is
that it has an eerie echo of claims by the ADL that political
commentary to which the ADL objects constitutes `obscenity.'”

Photographs
numbered (1) to (6). They include a burning Branch Davidian
building in Waco, TX and an anthrax lab scene,
as described below.

Caption: "History
Proves U.S. Government Up to Its Neck in Domestic Terror
Although President Bush launched an all-out “war on
terrorism,” what he does not seem eager to address is
the fact that most recent major incidents of domestic terrorism
have had a definitive “federal connection.” The
president and his supporters in such groups as the Anti-Defamation
League (ADL) of B’nai B’rith are eager to clamp
down on folks who dare to criticize government policies. Dissent
in America is being called “unpatriotic” and considered
subversive, particularly when people raise questions about
a wide variety of major crimes involving U.S. government perfidy
and cover-up. Shown at right: 1. U.S. tanks roll into Waco,
Texas, to participate in the bloody Holocaust and murder of
innocent men, women and children, all members of the Branch
Davidian Church. 2. Randy Weaver, whose wife and son were
killed by federal marksman after a siege of his family’s
cabin, points to a photo in court. 3. A man inspects a hole
created by a bomb during the first attack on the World Trade
Center which was orchestrated by a terrorist cell known to
have been penetrated by both the FBI and the intelligence
service of our “ally,” Israel. 4. The demolition
of the Murrah Building in Oklahoma City. The whole truth about
the Oklahoma bombing has yet to emerge, but we do know government
agents were involved in the tragedy. 5. The WTC burns on 9-11.
Officially sanctioned cover-up of what really happened —
including the involvement of Israel and traitorous activities
by collaborators in our own government — is being unraveled
by independent investigators with the support of AFP. 6. And
then there is the infamous anthrax attacks that came after
9-11. Although the FBI has terrorized one man for years without
arresting him — and few believe he is guilty of the
crime — there is strong evidence pointing toward a Muslim-hating
government-connected scientist known as a supporter of Israel.
Whoever “set up” the anthrax attacks tried to
make it look as though “evil Muslims” were responsible."